http://www.dbskeptic.com Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community. Sun, 11 Sep 2011 01:30:05 +0000 en-us hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 Digital Bits Skeptic brings skepticism and critical thinking to a world of new age, religion and credulous pop culture. Andy Kaiser clean Andy Kaiser skeptic@dbskeptic.com skeptic@dbskeptic.com (Andy Kaiser) 2009 Skepticism and critical thinking in a world of new age, religion and credulous pop culture skeptic, skepticism, critical thinking, new age, religion, pop culture, skeptical articles, critical thinking articles, philosophy http://www.dbskeptic.com/images/dbskeptic-logo-144.jpg http://www.dbskeptic.com/category/pseudoscience/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/#comments Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:50:12 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1971 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/feed/ 9 Science Reason & Rationality by Nick Josh Karean from Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 148 "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” - Carl Sagan, by Nick Josh Karean from Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 148 "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” - Carl Sagan, American Scientist (1934-1996) How many times have you heard someone claim that their products, theories or beliefs are "Scientifically Proven”? They often do this before completely taking over your brain and gaining absolute access into your wallet. Almost anyone can claim that their ideas are “scientifically proven” or “scientifically tested”. Judging by how gullible and ignorant most of us are, it really doesn’t take much for this claim to convince someone. What is science? So, how can you tell which claim is truly scientifically proven and which one is not? To understand, we first need a basic understanding of what science is, and how to ensure that those who claim to be “scientifically proven” have followed the required procedures to really deserve that title. Okay, let’s get to work. What exactly is science? Science is a method, a procedure, a technique by which we use to examine our surroundings and gain knowledge from them. With sometimes painstaking accuracy, science produces precise unbiased data. It’s not a belief system. Science is fact-based, not faith-based. For example, mathematics is a form of science: one plus two equals three. ‘One plus two’ is the method and ‘three’ is the answer derived from that method. The answer ‘three’ does not require your belief. It is a fact whether you believe in it or not. This factual approach is the best and the most reliable method for achieving accuracy. No matter how many times you repeat the process, it will produce the same results Expecting others to believe that one plus two equals four (without using any systematic scientific method to prove it) is not the right method of gaining knowledge and it is always prone to error. Another example of a factual approach is in the court of law. The court looks for evidence first before making a verdict. The judge and jury do not start with a conclusion – they develop one based on available evidence. “While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.” - Judge William Overton of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (1939-1987) The scientific method The 10 Commandments of Science (inspired by science journalist “Potholer”) Thou shalt base thy conclusion on the evidence. Thou shalt measure objectively, not guess subjectively. Thou shalt back up thy statements with evidence. Just claiming something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. Thou shalt use large sample sets. Thy tests shall be double-blinded. Thy tests shall have observable controls. Thou shalt cite thy sources of information. Thy sources of information must be reliable, verifiable and backed up by evidence. Thy opinion is not a fact. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Don’t lie! Well, actually, the above are not really divine commandments, but they're a good basic guide to scientific observation. All scientific knowledge is based on two things: observation and logic. Thus, good research follows these rules to produce true scientific data and genuine knowledge. As we said earlier, such rules are applied in the court of law to preserve or uphold justice. The rules exist to ensure impartiality, fairness and the most truthful of results. Now that we’ve understood the basics of science, let’s go a little deeper to see what exactly is involved in this whole scientific procedure thing. We’ll create a scenario, apply the basics of the scientific method, and see what happens… 1. Andy Kaiser clean 16:42 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/12/in-defense-of-oprah-winfrey/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/12/in-defense-of-oprah-winfrey/#comments Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:57:00 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1364 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/12/in-defense-of-oprah-winfrey/feed/ 5 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1330 - Oprah Winfrey was nothing more to me than an unseen TV show. I knew she was there, but never wanted to watch. Why would I? Her show was usually about clothes and cooking and redecorating and various "women's issues" ... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1330 Oprah Winfrey was nothing more to me than an unseen TV show. I knew she was there, but never wanted to watch. Why would I? Her show was usually about clothes and cooking and redecorating and various "women's issues" that I just didn't care about. I didn't have time for all that. I was a MAN. I had to get things DONE. No time for what I saw as fluff. I had important video games to play. Then years later, like some people do, I married a girl. My wife changed my viewpoint on many things, including how I felt about Oprah Winfrey. When I first realized my wife watched Oprah, I gave a long-suffering mental sigh. But, I figured I'd treat her Oprah-watching with the same respect she treated my video game playing: it would be tolerated, but never spoken about. But as I overheard a few things and learned some facts, my viewpoint changed. Oprah is a very good person. In 2007, Oprah spent $40 million to build the "Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls" in South Africa. She did this to provide educational opportunities to gifted girls who may not normally have a chance to succeed. In 2006, she raised money to help people recover from Hurricane Katrina. She got over $11 million in donations, and personally donated $10 million. In 1998, she started "Oprah's Angel Network", a charity designed to improve the lives of the underprivileged.  As of this writing, the charity has raised more than $51 million. And none of it is wasted - any overhead like administrative costs is personally covered by Oprah. 100% of donations actually get to those who need them. She's known to be an extremely philanthropic celebrity, if not the most philanthropic. I'm telling you these facts to show that Oprah herself personally cares about people, and she's willing to spend major chunks of her time and money to help others.  I'm telling you this to make clear what I believe about her personality - that whatever she might believe or promote, she's not malicious. Now we come to the situation today. It was my wife that alerted me as to the events. She said, "I just read this really cool Newsweek article about Oprah. I think you might be interested." The June 8, 2009 article was a long feature story on Oprah, detailing the medical quackery she's had on her show, from ineffective New Age scams  to dangerous anti-vaccination medical advice popularized in multiple interviews with Jenny McCarthy. It pulled no punches. The piece was titled, "Crazy Talk: Oprah, Wacky Cures and You". Then, just a few hours later, the skeptical community virtually exploded in glee. The big skeptical names brought out their big cannons, and fired. People in and outside of the skeptical community wrote their own "open letter to Oprah", expressing well-reasoned arguments as to why Oprah shouldn't be doing what she's doing, essentially bolstering and supporting the Newsweek article. So Oprah got slammed by the mass media. Hard. And don't get me wrong - she should be held accountable for popularizing such claims. Particularly when those claims go against the consensus of the medical community. Particularly if those claims could cause harm to others, either by intention or negligence. Particularly when Oprah is so influential. But in the press that followed the Newsweek article, people seemed to really hate Oprah herself. In my Inbox right now, I have an email from someone with the self-righteous subject line, "Oprah gets what is coming to her".  Reader's Digest magazine followed up with an article, "The Trouble With Celebrity Science". You'll find plenty of not-so-polite opinion pieces. Some are intelligent. Some have titles like "Oprah is an idiot" and "Oprah fails at everything". Well, Oprah is not an idiot. She doesn't "fail at everything". This is clear. A smart person can be uncritical and taken in by ideas they hope are true. A good example is Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes. Andy Kaiser clean 9:54 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/12/the-ideomotor-effect/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/12/the-ideomotor-effect/#comments Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:25:50 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1126 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/12/the-ideomotor-effect/feed/ 7 M Parrott By M Parrott Article ID: 1326 - The ideomotor effect is a psychological accident that spans many new age traditions, séances, and other "woo-woo" practises. I must emphasise that these practises aren't faked intentionally. By M Parrott Article ID: 1326 The ideomotor effect is a psychological accident that spans many new age traditions, séances, and other "woo-woo" practises. I must emphasise that these practises aren't faked intentionally. People delude themselves into believing they are true. Examples of the ideomotor effect cover a wide range of supernatural games, from Victorian-era séances to examining the most harmoniously-vibrating new age crystal. The ideomotor effect and the Ouija board Ah, yes, one of the most popular séance tools! Today, Ouija boards are usually perceived more as a joke and a fun party game. We all know the basic principal and layout of the most common Ouija boards - you've got a flat board with letters of the alphabet printed on it: You've got a "planchette", which is a small pointing device that can be slid around the board. Participants put their hands on the planchette and concentrate on a particular problem, question or spirit communication. The planchette will then start to move towards particular letters or symbols on the Ouija board, giving you a response to your question. If you want to test this out as we go, it would be a great exercise and far superior to me just talking to you: 1) Get 26 small sheets of paper. Write the letters A-Z on the pieces. 2) Get a large table and remove any coverings (like tablecloths). 3) Place all the cards face up in a circle so it looks somewhat like the picture you see here. Candles are optional. 4) Get a strong wine glass (preferably one without wine inside). Turn it upside down and place it in the centre of the cards. And there you have a homemade Ouija board. The next steps work better if you have more than one person, however you can try it alone if you want to tempt the Powers of Darkness all by yourself. Turn one letter over so it's face down. Place two fingers on the wine glass. Concentrate. Focus on believing that the wine glass WILL definitely move towards that one letter turned upside down. Don't move your hand intentionally, but if the glass moves move with it. Keep concentrating. It will move if you concentrate. And it'll speed up towards the letter and when it gets there it will stop at the letter. Now that may not have worked for all of you, but it will have worked for some. I also apologise if the wine glass shot off the table and smashed. If so, that just means you are really easy to manipulate. Now you may be wondering how that worked and why the glass moved. You know for a fact you didn't move the glass. So how did it move? Through a genuine spirit! Nah, just messing with you. The movement happens because of the ideomotor effect. The ideomotor is the mechanism which makes your reflexes kick in when your knee is tapped gently with a doctor's hammer. But in this case what happens is, due to you focusing so much mental power on something, your body makes it physically happen. You may not think you are doing it, but you are, and the more you are convinced it is going to happen, the faster it happens. Which is why a Ouija board "works" better for people who use one more often. What evidence do I have for this? Easy: find a medium who will do the Ouija board blind-folded. Blindfold them, and then without telling them, turn the Ouija board around. As the "Ouijing" commences, the medium will move the planchette to the locations that they think the letters are, as if the board was rotated correctly. This shows the Ouija board is all in the user's mind, and that it isn't some spiritual communion. Ouija boards aren't the only evidence of the ideomotor effect in new age superstitions. Dowsing Dowsing is traditionally thought of as the process of finding underground water or oil using Y-shaped sticks or wire. To a large extent, this is the process. But dowsing has widened its spectrum of effect. A few years ago, I saw a dowser trying to find human remains on a British Archaeology programme called "Time Team". Andy Kaiser clean 11:07 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/10/the-swine-flu-crisis/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/10/the-swine-flu-crisis/#comments Mon, 11 May 2009 02:07:30 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1002 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/10/the-swine-flu-crisis/feed/ 9 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1320 - The news lately has been buzzing about the swine flu. Excuse me, I mean the "H1N1 virus". Or the "2009 H1N1 influenza virus". Or the "H1N1 swine flu". - You know what? I'm going to forego the medical designation and... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1320 The news lately has been buzzing about the swine flu. Excuse me, I mean the "H1N1 virus". Or the "2009 H1N1 influenza virus". Or the "H1N1 swine flu". You know what? I'm going to forego the medical designation and... Andy Kaiser clean 15:22 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/22/a-shocking-lesson-in-human-nature/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/22/a-shocking-lesson-in-human-nature/#comments Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:50:56 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=894 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/22/a-shocking-lesson-in-human-nature/feed/ 12 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1313 - Hi everyone, this is Andy Kaiser. I'd like to share an interesting experience. I have a unique perspective on the Digital Bits Skeptic website, because I'm the administrator. I edit and post all articles. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1313 Hi everyone, this is Andy Kaiser. I'd like to share an interesting experience. I have a unique perspective on the Digital Bits Skeptic website, because I'm the administrator. I edit and post all articles. Some of those I write myself, and my articles interest me, no matter how odd they may seem to others. I also get to see all comments submitted by visitors. This gives me a very good feel for the readership. For the most part, Digital Bits Skeptic has... well, skeptical-minded readers. These are women and men with excellent critical thinking skills, people who enjoy weird and interesting puzzles, people who want to attack logical anomalies and find out why and how. Several months ago, I wrote and posted an article about "human static electricity generators". I wrote it for laughs, and poked fun at a pseudoscientific claim that didn't even take itself seriously. This was the case of Mavis Price, and an interview she gave to the UK newspaper the Daily Mail. Ms. Price is a woman whose body supposedly generates a massive amount of static electricity. Like a high-voltage ninja, this power gives her a "death-touch" to any electrical appliance. Computers and vacuum cleaners and television sets have all fallen victim to this static buildup. So I wrote a critical article about this, poking fun at the situation and offering many suggestions as to why Ms. Price may be misinterpreting her symptoms. And the strangest thing happened: the article received a few comments, as the articles usually do, but these comments were different. They were from people chiming in to support Ms. Price. Starting with comment number three, many of these people claimed they could generate their own static electricity, and, like Ms. Price, expressed their frustration at how this power is irritating and interferes with their daily life. Here are a few comments: Kathleen said, "A friend of mine is a psychologist and he used his galvanic skin resistance test machine on me and had never seen anything like what I made that machine do." Mac said, "But these days it's worse - metal shocks me, other people, plastic yes plastic..cloth...wood...i am freakin afraid to touch anything...i mean these are mean crackling visible shocks mini blue bolts or electricity...don't get me wrong if i could control it would be cool but i can't..." Brook said, "I am 37, and have purchased 26 VCR/DVD players in the last 48 months, I have shocked people on the other end of a phone line, and in the dark if I get close to a light switch you can visibly see the arc from my finger tip to the light switch before I touch it. I dim streetlights when I walk below them, and haven't been able to wear a watch since I was 13. It is real, it is financially cumbersome, and it freaks people out. Yes, I am using a computer to type this message, I've learned first to ground myself before touching any electrical equipment, and second it doesn't happen all of the time, it seems more common when I am angry, or deep in thought etc. I just wanted to respond because there are many people that are different in the world, this is just another (dis)ability." Other skeptics and I replied. We gave recommendations for properly testing this power, how to rule out natural causes, and indicated what a supernatural cause would imply. I contacted James Randi, and asked him if he'd encountered this phenomenon. Of course he had. His response was, "Yes, I've seen a few of them. Simply changing their footwear always 'cures' the problem." A simple proposal. But as the conversation extended into several dozen comments, I realized something: Those complaining about this ability didn't seem to care enough to troubleshoot it. And that's the real problem. If you think you have a static super-power, I'm begging you: please see a doctor. If the doctor does a test and says, "My god, I've never seen anything like this before!" ...don't just end it there! Andy Kaiser clean 6:58 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/28/spontaneous-human-combustion-and-the-wick-effect/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/28/spontaneous-human-combustion-and-the-wick-effect/#comments Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:42:55 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=761 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/28/spontaneous-human-combustion-and-the-wick-effect/feed/ 11 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1310 - Imagine you're sitting at home on your favorite overstuffed armchair. You sink down in the stuffing and relax. You've got a cigarette in one hand, a drink in the other. - You smoke and drink. You're sleepy, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1310 Imagine you're sitting at home on your favorite overstuffed armchair. You sink down in the stuffing and relax. You've got a cigarette in one hand, a drink in the other. You smoke and drink. You're sleepy, and the lazy trail of cigarette smoke is a gentle hypnosis. It lulls you into closing your eyes. Your brain decides it would rather be dreaming, and the rest of your body agrees. You go to sleep. You never again wake up. After your hysterical neighbor calls emergency services, the police break in to your home and find a gruesome and unbelievable sight. Your body is burned. Clothing, flesh and bones. It's gone. All that's left of you is a foot still wearing a slipper. Your chair is nothing but black cinders. But what's so perplexing, so frightening, is that there is no other damage to the room. Your body and your chair were destroyed, incinerated. But despite the horrible heat and flame needed to accomplish this, the fire never spread beyond, well, you. This wasn't caused by an electrical problem, and there was no highly-combustible fuel like gasoline. The fire was brutally hot, and burned fast, so couldn't have been caused by a dropped cigarette. And in either case, the pain of being burned would have woken you up before killing you. This is the mystery of spontaneous human combustion. While I've used a little poetic license in the story above, it really did happen. These were the facts of what could be the most famous case of spontaneous human combustion, that of Mary Reeser, who died in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 1951. Proponents of spontaneous human combustion point to several possible explanations. Humans can suddenly explode into flame, they say, because of things like excessive static electricity build-up. Get a big enough zap, and you'll spark a fire. There are indeed people who get more than the average amount of static shocks. And every human gut carries around a quantity of methane gas. This highly flammable gas is one of the byproducts of digestion. Perhaps certain unlucky people - those with more than average methane and a higher incidence of static shocks - are more likely to burst into flame without warning. If you were looking for a reason to stop smoking, I can't think of any better incentive. Luckily for those of us who haven't yet combusted, things make more sense when we look at spontaneous human combustion from a skeptical point of view. In order for a human body - or anything - to burst into flame, we need three things: 1) Fuel 2) Heat 3) Oxygen Let's examine the Mary Reeser case. We have oxygen, of course: The air we breathe is about 21% oxygen. We have heat: Reeser's lit cigarette. And we have a limited fuel source: Reeser's chair. What I haven't yet detailed beyond the opening story are a few additional facts about Mary Reeser: She was overweight. At the time of the accident, she was wearing flammable nightclothes. She had also just taken multiple doses of sleeping pills. The floors and walls of her apartment were made of concrete. The wick effect I said the chair is a "limited" fuel source because stuffing and wood are probably not enough to produce a bone-incinerating heat all on their own. To achieve this, we consider "the wick effect". This is where the fat in a body contributes to a fire. As the fire heats a body, the fat will melt and begin to burn. Just as a cotton wick will pull molten wax from a candle and burn it, cotton stuffing in a chair will do the same thing with human body fat of a person sitting in that chair. Like Mary Reeser. With the addition of these facts, the sequence of events becomes ever clearer: Mary Reeser fell asleep in her chair. Her lit cigarette dropped and ignited her nightgown or her chair. The material burned, and Reeser did not wake in time (or at all) because of her recently-ingested sleeping pills. The fat in her body liquefied and burned, Andy Kaiser clean 8:21 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/14/orgone-chips-review-new-age-versus-the-scientific-method/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/14/orgone-chips-review-new-age-versus-the-scientific-method/#comments Sun, 15 Feb 2009 02:46:35 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=706 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/14/orgone-chips-review-new-age-versus-the-scientific-method/feed/ 11 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser - Article ID: 138 - Orgone is a magical energy force that's inside and outside our bodies. You can think of orgone as the Chinese culture's "chi" or any generic "life force energy". It permeates us and everything around us. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 138 Orgone is a magical energy force that's inside and outside our bodies. You can think of orgone as the Chinese culture's "chi" or any generic "life force energy". It permeates us and everything around us. Using ... Andy Kaiser clean 17:47 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/02/evolutionary-science-and-creationism-a-skeptical-response-to-duane-gishs-creation-scientists-answer-their-critics/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/02/evolutionary-science-and-creationism-a-skeptical-response-to-duane-gishs-creation-scientists-answer-their-critics/#comments Sun, 02 Nov 2008 05:39:24 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=455 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/02/evolutionary-science-and-creationism-a-skeptical-response-to-duane-gishs-creation-scientists-answer-their-critics/feed/ 2 Matthew Green By Matthew Green Article ID: 1258 - Controversy over creation and evolution persists. For most secularists, the battle was won long ago. It began with the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species and the ensuing debates between Darwin's defenders an... By Matthew Green Article ID: 1258 Controversy over creation and evolution persists. For most secularists, the battle was won long ago. It began with the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species and the ensuing debates between Darwin's defenders and his opponents. Creationism persists today for a simple reason: fundamentalism persists today. Creationism is nothing more than Christian apologetics attempting to validate the historical inerrancy of the creation accounts of the Hebrew Bible's Book of Genesis. Creation "scientists" such as the late Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Jonathan Sarfati, and others use whatever "facts" to support Genesis, while rationalizing away anything to the contrary as a result of sloppy thinking or dishonest ulterior motives. They say that skeptics have more to do with "misotheism" (hatred of gods) or "compromise" than with honest scientific objectivity. These creationists believe that skepticism or disbelief is more from a desire to avoid a "relationship" with Jesus Christ and an existential involvement with the gospel. These pathetic attempts to construct a "science" out of creationism are attempts to present Christianity as intellectually respectable to the modern world. This ensures that the gospel isn't dismissed out of hand by a more educated public. What it all comes down to is evangelism. Apologists are doing what they can to make the Bible look scientifically inerrant so they can have an easier time convincing people to become Christians. This article shows that: 1) Creationists use Karl Popper's universally accepted concept of "falsifiability" as a valid criterion for what constitutes a scientific theory. 2) Creationists do not seem to realize that evolution meets this criterion. 3) Creationists cannot pass this criterion on theological grounds because it is inconsistent with the nature of the Christian God. Karl Popper's criterion of "falsifiability" Karl Popper was a science philosopher who proposed the criterion of "falsifiability" as a necessary ingredient of science. Falsifiability means that that an assertion can be proven false by observation or experiment. This is the biggest criterion used to demarcate authentic science from pseudoscience. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says this about Popper's criterion of "falsifiability": "It is easy, [Popper] argues, to obtain evidence in favour of virtually any theory, and he consequently holds that such ‘corroboration' ... should count scientifically only if it is the positive result of a ... prediction, which might conceivably have been false. For Popper, a theory is scientific only if it is refutable... Every genuine test of a scientific theory, then, is logically an attempt to refute or to falsify it, and one genuine counter-instance falsifies the whole theory. ...In a word, an exception, far from ‘proving' a rule, conclusively refutes it. Every genuine scientific theory then, in Popper's view, is prohibitive, in the sense that it forbids ... particular events or occurrences. As such it can be tested and falsified, but never logically verified. Thus Popper stresses that it should not be inferred from the fact that a theory has withstood [testing and has been verified]; rather we should recognize that such a theory has received a high measure of corroboration and [is] the best available theory until it is finally falsified ... or is superseded by a better theory." So the hallmark of a genuine scientific theory is "falsifiability". It has to be capable of being refuted or falsified in order to truly qualify as a scientific theory. A theory is scientific only if it is refutable. This can be an observation, an experiment, or any other empirical test that can decisively refute it. Theories cannot be verified but they can be refuted and the failure of experiments, observations, or any other empirical test gives scientists greater confidence that the hypothesis or theory is, in fact, true. Andy Kaiser clean 21:02 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/19/political-science-and-skepticism-politics-needs-critical-thought/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/19/political-science-and-skepticism-politics-needs-critical-thought/#comments Mon, 20 Oct 2008 03:27:51 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=401 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/19/political-science-and-skepticism-politics-needs-critical-thought/feed/ 5 Jason Y By Jason Y Article ID: 1256 - When someone thinks of the word "skeptic" or thinks about the movement in general, they get ideas about exposing Bigfoot hunters and cracking down on pseudoscience.  Although issues like these are a part of the skepticis... By Jason Y Article ID: 1256 When someone thinks of the word "skeptic" or thinks about the movement in general, they get ideas about exposing Bigfoot hunters and cracking down on pseudoscience.  Although issues like these are a part of the skepticis... Andy Kaiser clean 8:59 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/10/where-meat-meets-metal-how-acupuncture-works-or-doesnt/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/10/where-meat-meets-metal-how-acupuncture-works-or-doesnt/#comments Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:54:59 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=383 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/10/where-meat-meets-metal-how-acupuncture-works-or-doesnt/feed/ 10 Thomas Gentry By Thomas Gentry Article ID: 1254 - Right down the road from my house, there's a store selling and promoting homeopathy and acupuncture. I've spent a couple dozen hours collecting information about the place and what it sells so that I can give an ac... By Thomas Gentry Article ID: 1254 Right down the road from my house, there's a store selling and promoting homeopathy and acupuncture. I've spent a couple dozen hours collecting information about the place and what it sells so that I can give an accurate depiction of its beliefs and worth. In the next few paragraphs I'll expound on why this alternative modality of medicine is another case of people taking money for a service they can't render. I'll use text from their own website and combine this with the knowledge and critical thinking skills I have acquired from past studies. When addressed critically, this undermines the practitioners' intellectual credibility and their entire profession. I'm not a particularly well-read or knowledgeable person; I don't have specific knowledge of any field in appreciable depth. What I do have is years of training and practice in trying to spot lies and chicanery. In this case, I don't need in-depth knowledge of any specific medical modality. If I needed detailed knowledge of every topic to judge the validity of its claims, I would still be stuck on making and learning the proofs for addition, multiplication, and subtraction--don't even get me started on division. Using the filtering processes afforded to me by the rules of logic, I gauge a topic by the unlikelihood of its claims. The reference material for acupuncture sets off nearly every "red flag" I have acquired over the years, leading me to judge it as an extremely unlikely candidate for efficacy. Right from the "get go", if you do a search on the natural history of acupuncture you find claims like "It is based on the theory that a life force called Qi [pronounced 'chee'] flows through the body along certain channels, which if blocked can cause illness." That particular red flag is called the logical fallacy of "magical thinking." The magical thinking proponent says something meaningless, and allows the listener to fill in any logical gaps. Like how this "life force" works, what it is, or what is blocking it. How does the insertion of needles fix this blockage? This method of boondoggling doesn't work once you have the trained habit of forming questions when information is presented. It's as simple as asking, "how does this statement explain the claim?" If we can get past the first premise of this Chinese ideology (which already leap-frogs past rationality), the literature abounds with examples of lazy thinking. For instance, the claim that "acupuncture has been practiced for up to 5,000 years in the Orient" added to this claim of, "the evidences for acupuncture's effectiveness are adding up." In five thousand years, there's not enough data to link a cause and effect! What disheveled mind could make both of these claims without seeing the two statements are nearly incompatible, unless the writer means to say "the evidence has been building for 5,000 years, but we don't want to be too expedient in our proclamation of acupuncture's worth." That's only five hundred decades without a sensible explanation of acupuncture's cause and effect. Today's strongest claims have no link between cause and effect. The acupuncture peddlers themselves can't definitively explain their treatment. I found at least four separate and distinct ideas proposed as the underlying method of how acupuncture works. I'd like to specifically address two of these: Endorphins The body reacts to pain and intrusion by releasing feel-good drugs that lessen the pain. That one sounds fairly straight-forward, probably because it doesn't mention Qi. It refers to an actual, measurable, chemical process of the body. But why insert needles all over your body when you could just take these same chemicals in pill form? If this acupuncture claim really is correct, the entire process has been outmoded by modern pharmacology! Magic The next idea listed on my local acupuncturists' website was, "inserting a needle into the body's connective tissue... Andy Kaiser clean 8:23